Address  <m 

PRESIDENT  TAFT 

American  Society 
for  the 

Judicial  Settlement 
oJ 

International  disputes 


JXI963 

.TI2. 


ADDRESS  OF 

PRESIDENT  TAFT 


AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  SOCIETY  FOR  THE 
JUDICIAL  SETTLEMENT 
OF  INTERNATIONAL 
DISPUTES 


AT  THE  NEW  WILLARD,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 
DECEMBER  17,  1910 


PRINTED  IN  THE  CONGRESSIONAL 
RECORD  OF  JANUARY  11,  1911 


§ i 

V.  .W 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1911 

73952-  -0496 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/addressofpreside00taft_1 


ADDRESS. 


We  hear  a great  deal  nowadays  of  movements  and  societies  and 
legislative  resolutions  in  favor  of  international  peace,  and  I assume 
that  no  one  would  wish  to  be  put  in  the  position  of  denying  that 
peace  contributes  greatly  to  the  happiness  of  mankind,  or  of  advo- 
cating war  as  an  institution  to  be  fostered  in  and  of  itself.  To  say 
that  one  is  in  favor  of  peace  is  not  much  more  startling  than  to  say 
that  one  is  in  favor  of  honesty,  in  favor  of  virtue,  in  favor  of  good, 
and  oposed  to  evil.  That  from  which  the  world  can  derive  the  most 
benefit  is  a practical  suggestion  leading  to  more  permanent  peace. 
Many  have  thought  that  this  could  be  brought  about  by  an  agreement 
among  the  powers  to  disarm,  and  some  sort  of  a convention  by  which 
the  race  to  bankruptcy  in  the  maintenance  of  great  armies  and  the 
construction  of  great  navies  might  cease  and  a gradual  disarmament 
follow.  Future  events  may  justify  some  different  conclusion,  but 
movements  in  the  past  along  this  line  have  not  been  fruitful  of  prac- 
tical results.  Bankruptcy  and  the  burdensome  weight  of  debt  involved 
in  continued  armament  may  bring  about  a change  in  the  present 
national  tendencies.  Meantime,  however,  I am  strongly  convinced 
that  the  best  method  of  ultimately  securing  disarmament  is  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  international  court  and  the  development  of  a code  of 
international  equity  which  nations  will  recognize  as  affording  a better 
method  of  settling  international  controversies  than  war.  We  must 
have  some  method  of  settling  issues  between  nations,  and  if  we  do  not 
have  arbitration,  we  shall  have  war.  Of  course  the  awful  results  of 
war,  with  its  modern  armaments  and  frightful  cost  of  life  and  treasure, 
and  its  inevitable  shaking  of  dynasties  and  governments,  have  made 
nations  more  chary  of  resort  to  the  sword  than  ever  before ; and  the 
present,  therefore,  because  of  this,  would  seem  to  be  an  excellent 
time  for  pressing  the  substitution  of  courts  for  force. 

I am  glad  to  come  here  and  to  give  my  voice  in  favor  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  a permanent  international  court.  I sincerely  hope  that 
the  negotiations  which  Secretary  Knox  has  initiated  in  favor  of  an 
international  prize  court — after  the  establishment  of  that  court — will 
involve  the  enlargement  of  that  court  into  a general  arbitral  court  for 
international  matters.  It  is  quite  likely  that  the  provisions  for  the 

73952— 949G  3 


4 


constitution  of  the  arbitral  court  will  have  to  be  different  somewhat 
from  those  that  govern  the  selection  of  members  of  the  prize  court, 
but  I am  glad  to  think  that  the  two  movements  are  in  the  same  direc- 
tion and  are  both  likely  to  be  successful. 

What  teaches  nations  and  peoples  the  possibility  of  permanent  peace 
is  the  actual  settlement  of  controversies  by  courts  of  arbitration.  The 
settlement  of  the  Alabama  controversy  by  the  Geneva  arbitration,  the 
settlement  of  the  seals  controversy  by  the  Paris  Tribunal,  the  settle- 
ment of  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  controversy  by  The  Hague  Tri- 
bunal are  three  great  substantial  steps  toward  permanent  peace,  three 
facts  accomplished  that  have  done  more  for  the  cause  than  anything 
else  in  history. 

If,  now,  we  can  negotiate  and  put  through  a positive  agreement  with 
some  great  nation  to  abide  the  adjudication  of  an  international  arbitral 
court  in  every  issue  which  can  not  be  settled  by  negotiation,  no  matter 
what  it  involves,  whether  honor,  territory,  or  money,  we  shall  have 
made  a long  step  forward  b ydemonstrating  that  it  is  possible  for  two 
nations  at  least  to  establish  as  between  them  the  same  system  of  due 
process  of  law  that  exists  between  individuals  under  a government. 

It  seems  to  be  the  view  of  many  that  it  is  inconsistent  for  those  of 
us  who  advocate  any  kind  of  preparation  for  war  or  any  maintenance 
of  armed  force  or  fortification  to  raise  our  voices  for  peaceful  means 
of  settling  international  controversies.  But  I think  this  view  is  quite 
unjust  and  is  not  practical.  We  only  recognize  existing  conditions 
and  know  that  we  have  not  reached  a point  where  war  is  impossible 
or  out  of  the  question,  and  do  not  believe  that  the  point  has  been 
reached  in  which  all  nations  are  so  constituted  that  they  may  not  at 
times  violate  their  national  obligations. 

Take,  thus,  the  question  of  the  Panama  Canal.  We  have  a property 
which  when  completed  will  be  worth  $100,000,000 — at  least,  it  will 
have  cost  us  that.  It  has  been  built  not  alone  to  further  the  cause  of 
the  world’s  commerce,  but  also  to  bring  our  eastern  and  western  sea- 
boards closer  together  and  to  secure  us  the  military  benefit  enabling 
our  naval  fleet  to  pass  quickly  from  one  ocean  to  the  other.  Now, 
the  works  of  the  canal  are  of  such  a character  that  a war  vessel  might 
easily  put  the  canal  out  of  commission.  We  are  authorized  to  police 
the  canal  and  protect  it,  and  we  have  the  treaty  right  to  erect  fortifica- 
tions there.  Fortifications  are  the  best  and  most  secure  method  of 
protecting  that  canal  against  the  attack  of  some  irresponsible  nation 
or  armed  force.  It  is  said  that  we  could  neutralize  the  canal  and  by 
inducing  all  nations  to  agree  not  to  attack  the  canal  secure  its  immu- 
nity from  injury.  But  the  trouble  is  that  nations  are  quite  as  likely 
as  men  to  violate  their  obligations  under  great  stress  like  that  of  war. 
It  seems  to  me  that  we  ought  to  put  ourselves  in  a position  with 

73952—0406 


5 


reference  to  this  very  valuable  and  delicate  piece  of  property  so  that, 
should  any  nation  forget  its  obligation,  we  will  be  in  a position  to 
prevent  unlawful  injury  to  this  instrument  of  commerce  so  valuable 
to  the  world  and  so  indispensable  to  us.  The  fact  that  Ave  fortify  the 
canal  will  not  prevent  us  from  discharging  all  international  obliga- 
tions that  we  may  have  in  respect  to  it,  but  it  will  enable  us  to  defend 
ourselves  in  its  possession  against  the  act  of  every  irresponsible  force 
or  nation.  It  will  not  prevent  our  maintaining  its  neutrality  if  that 
is  wise  and  right. 

I would  like  to  invite  attention  to  an  interesting  incident  within  the 
last  month.  Suppose  a Dreadnought  under  the  command  of  the  men 
who  have  recently  been  in  command  of  Dreadnoughts  were  to  seek 
entrance  to  that  canal  by  force.  What  we  need  is  something  to  defend 
.what  is  ours,  and  because  we  have  the  means  of  defending  it  is  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  neutralize  the  canal  completely  if  that  be 
wise.  . , 

Again,  our  strong  feeling  in  favor  of  peace,  it  seems  to  me,  ought 
not  to  prevent  our  taking  the  proper  steps  under  existing  conditions 
to  maintain  our  national  defenses.  We  have  on  the  continent  of  the 
United  States  excellent  coast  defenses  for  every  important  harbor  that 
an  enemy  could  enter.  We  probably  ought  to  see  to  it  that  we  have 
ammunition  and  guns  enough  for  ready  use  in  case  of  emergency.  We 
have  a small  but  very  efficient  Army  of  80,000  men.  We  have  a militia 
of  about  125,000  men.  The  Army  is  so  constituted  that  we  could  en- 
large it  from  a skeleton  organization  into  a much  larger  body.  We 
ought  to  have  more  trained  officers,  so  as  to  furnish  the  teachers  to  a 
larger  body  of  men  that  Avar  might  require  us  to  enlist. 

There  has  been  a good  deal  of  talk  in  the  papers,  and  some  reference 
in  Congress,  to  the  supposed  helpless  condition  of  this  country  in  the 
event  of  a foreign  invasion.  I venture  to  think  that  much  more  has 
been  made  of  this  than  the  facts,  calmly  considered,  Avould  justify. 
We  have  a very  good  Navy,  and  with  the  opening  of  the  Panama 
Canal  it  will  be  a much  more  effective  one.  It  Avould  be  useful  to 
prevent  the  coming  of  an  invading  army  across  the  seas. 

The  people  of  this  country  will  never  consent  to  the  maintenance  of 
a standing  army  which  military  experts  would  pronounce  sufficiently 
large  to  cope  in  battle  with  the  standing  armies  of  Europe,  should 
they  get  by  our  NaA-y,  avoid  our  harbor  defenses,  and  descend  upon 
our  coast.  If  this  lea\"es  us  in  a position  of  helplessness,  then  so  be  it, 
for  those  Avho  understand  the  popular  will  in  this  country  knoAV  that 
it  can  not  be  othenvise.  We  shall  do  everything  in  the  way  of  wise 
military  preparation  if  we  maintain  our  present  Regular  Army,  if  Ave 
continue  to  impro\Te  the  National  Militia,  if  avc  pass  the  pending  vol- 
unteer bill,  to  go  into  operation  Avhen  Avar  is  declared,  and  not  to  in- 
73052—0406 


6 


volve  the  nation  in  a dollar's  worth  of  expense  until  the  emergency 
arises ; if  we  pass  a law,  now  pending  in  Congress,  which  will  give  us 
a force  of  additional  officers  trained  in  the  military  art,  and  able  in 
times  of  peace  to  render  efficient  service  in  drilling  the  militia  of  the 
States,  and  in  filling  useful  quasi  civil  positions  that  are  of  the  utmost 
advantageto  the  Government,  and  if  we  in  a reasonable  time  accumu- 
late guns  and  ammunition  enough  to  equip  and  arm  the  force  we  could 
enlist  under  our  colors  in  an  emergency. 

This  discussion  of  needed  military  preparations  does  not  sound  very 
well  at  a peace  meeting,  but  the  trouble  about  a peace  meeting  is  that 
it  seems  to  me  to  be  just  one-half  of  the  picture,  and  I want  to  intro- 
duce the  whole  picture  in  order  that  what  is  resolved  here  and  wliat 
is  said  here  may  be  understood  to  be  said  with  a view  to  existing  con- 
ditions and  to  the  practical  truth. 

I have  said  this  much  in  order  to  allay  the  so-called  war  scare  which 
has  furnished  pabulum  for  the  newspapers  during  the  last  few  days. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  such  a sensation.  We  are  at 
peace  with  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  are  quite  likely  to  remain 
so  as  far  as  we  can  see  into  the  future.  Just  a little  more  forethought, 
a little  more  attention  to  the  matter  on  the  part  of  Congress,  and  we 
shall  have  all  of  the  Army  and  all  of  the  munitions  and  material  of 
war  that  we  ought  to  have  in  a republic  situated,  as  we  are,  3,000  miles 
on  the  one  hand  and  5,000  miles  on  the  other  from  the  source  of  pos- 
sible invasion.  Our  Army  is  much  more  expensive  per  man  than  that 
of  any  other  nation,  and  it  is  not  an  unmixed  evil  that  it  is  so,  because 
it  necessarily  restricts  us  to  the  maintenance  of  a force  which  is  indis- 
pensable in  the  ordinary  policing  of  this  country  and  our  dependencies 
and  furnishes  an  additional  reason  for  our  using  every  endeavor  to 
maintain  peace. 

I congratulate  this  association  on  the  recent  foundation  of  Mr. 
Carnegie,  by  which,  under  the  wise  guidance  of  Mr.  Elihu  Eoot,  Mr. 
Knox,  and  their  associates,  an  income  of  half  a million  of  dollars  an- 
nually is  to  be  expended  in  the  practical  promotion  of  movements 
to  secure  permanent  peace.  The  wide  discretion  given  to  the  trustees, 
and  their  known  ability,  foresight,  and  common  sense,  insure  the  use- 
fulness of  the  gift. 

War  has  not  disappeared  and  history  will  not  be  free  from  it  for 
years  to  come,  but  the  worst  pessimist  can  not  be  blind  to  the  fact 
that  in  the  last  25  years  long  steps  have  been  taken  in  the  direction  of 
the  peaceful  settlement  of  international  controversies,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  a general  arbitral  court  for  all  nations  is  no  longer  the 
figment  of  the  brain  of  a dreamy  enthusiast. 

73952—9496 


o 


